Back
NAJMI WAZIRI, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Hridesh Kumar Pathak – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. The petitioner seeks stay of all the proceedings emanating from the orders that may be passed in OA No. 394 of 2018 before the DRT- II, Delhi.
2. The final order passed in the said application on 06.08.2022 directs as under:
"6.(i) In light of the above facts & circumstances, the Original Application is hereby allowed to the effect that the applicant bank is entitled to receive a sum of 31,49,351/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs, Forty None Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty One Only), as on 28.02.2018, less the amount already received during this intervening period (if any), along with pendente-lite and future simple interest @ 11.50% per annum, and costs, till realization, from 01.03.2018, as mentioned in following para 6 (ii).
(ii) In case of failure to complete the project and pay to the applicant bank, on the part of defendant No. 3/subsequent transferee of the project; or completion of project, but execution of sale deed in favour of any third party; the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of properties of Defendant No 3, with direction to compensate def
The court's decision emphasized the principle that no recovery liability can be fastened upon the petitioner until the proceedings have been exhausted, and the petitioner's right to pursue remedies w....
The court emphasized that the petitioner would have the liberty to file a response/reply at the appropriate stage and pursue available legal remedies, and would not be required to make any payments u....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of loan agreements for property development, recovery should first be sought from the property developer and land owner, with the pet....
The rights of the second allottee and the recovery process in case of default by the developer were central to the court's decision.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of approaching the concerned tribunal for urgent hearing and disposal of the case, while maintaining status-quo in the interim.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding consent terms, the obligations of the parties, and preventing deliberate obstruction of recovery proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Recovery Officer should not proceed with the execution of the recovery certificate after a stay has been granted by a superior court, and ....
The court clarified that there is no provision in the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act ousting the remedy of a civil suit by a defendant in a claim by the bank, and the proceedings under the Act ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
